Posted
by
kdawson
on Friday July 11, 2008 @10:51AM
from the what-was-once-private dept.

slick_shoes notes a story out of England: a woman named Amanda Hudson is suing six national newspapers for defamation and breach of privacy after they ran stories based on her 15-year-old daughter's exaggerated claims about her party, published on her Bebo site. The party was held at the family's £4m villa in Spain, and the daughter's account claimed that jewelery had been stolen and furniture and a television set thrown into the swimming pool; in addition there were claims of sex and drug use. The mother says that this was all falsehood and exaggeration. A number of newspapers picked up claims and photos from Bebo and ran them nationally. From the article: "The case is expected to have far-reaching consequences for third parties who use or publish information from social networking sites. Lawyers say it could place a duty on all second-hand users to establish the truth of everything they want to republish from such sites."

The first story I found from the Daily Mail [dailymail.co.uk] included getting a response from the mother, quotes from other party goers, etc

In the words of Jodie on her Bebo page after the event: 'There's so much damage and clothes stolen. A lot of broken doors. people cauight (sic) having sex.'

But the teenager seemed unrepentant about the chaos she caused, adding: 'I got punched by my mum for it and grounded until the summer. wat a a BITCH!'

Mrs Hudson, who is separated from Jodie's father, yesterday denied she had hit her daughter....One partygoer, who said he had heard about the event from friends, said: 'Somebody said we were allowed to wreck the house because the birthday girl's parents were getting divorced.

'There were kids behaving like gangsters from a rap video, throwing stuff around and smashing things. There were chairs, tables, even a TV in the pool.'...

Mrs Hudson had been hoping to move and had put her home in the exclusive El Paraiso development on the market.

Friends said she told them: 'The place looked like a war zone.'All the banisters have been broken. The walls are ruined, the carpets are destroyed, furniture is broken . . . It is going to take months to sort out.'

One friend said: 'Amanda is still furious with her daughter and hasn't spoken to her for days.'

Last night Mrs Hudson played down the furore. 'Jodie had up to 400 people, but she knows a lot of people,' she said.

'With a party that size you are always going to end up with some damage.'

Asked about Jodie's comments on Bebo, she said: 'I don't know what she has written on her site, and I'm not saying anything else.'

Just because the mother denies (possibly criminal, depending on how hitting her daughter occurred and what the laws are regarding serving minors alcohol over there) the report doesn't mean it was defamation or they didn't do their jobs. Maybe the quotes were made up, and maybe the pictures from the girl's blog didn't show what they seemed to (teenagers paired up in bed, passed out drunk girls, young men/teenagers carrying beer around) but we shouldn't assume that.

According to wiki in the UK

A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.

The US uses a somewhat similar standard. If you've got claims by the daughter, quotes from friends of the mother, and from party goers (and these are not fabricated) then to me "due care" has probably been taken.

I think that solicitors that encourage action when that is not good professional advice, should be ordered by the courts to pay all costs and there should be no cost to the person taking action. The mother naturally wants to take action, I accept that she is asking to take action... but the solicitor is the professional and should have an obligation to make it really clear that there is no case when there is no case. If the courts made a few solicitors pay when it was beyond doubt that they had encouraged action, then it would make the rest think twice before recommending action. Such a ruling would also cut down on frivolous claims by greedy companies...

Its patently false. There are places that the limit is ridiculous (UK its 5 w/ a parent), less strict (many places in Europe its 16) or identical to the US. Other places, alcohol can only be purchased or consumed at certain times, or not at all.

Why is it ridiculous? What possible harm could a half glass of cider or whatever given to a child by a parent under supervision cause? If more parents gave their children small amounts of alcohol as they grow up (e.g. at the dinner table) then young adults would be more responsible towards alcohol as in countries such as France. By "more responsible" I mean less likely to go out 'on the town' and far surpass their limits.

But the story was put into the public forum by the daughter, if the story is untrue, all the papers are guilty of is poor journalism, which only affects their reputation. If the stories are true the mother should be looking at pressing charges against the party goers for vandalism, or holding the daughter responsible. If not true, then her beef is with the Paris-Hilton-wannabe who is her daughter for putting the family in the unwanted public spotlight.

Thankfully you said 'Newspaper' editors, if we held the editors around here to that standard there would be no stories!

Seriously, this is stupid; her daughter published the 'facts' as it were. She may have a claim, but her daughter should be enjoined from having a claim.If I tell you I'm a drunk, and you publish it I can't later say that it wasn't true and sue you for publishing it.

Actually the ONLY way they can get away with it and NOT lose the lawsuit is to have said throughout the story "the young, 15 year old girl's blog CLAIMS that... etc etc."

If they said "and in related news, etc mansion was host to a party and etc got high, knocked up and smashed a TV" that's libel/defamation. Claims have to be attributed as such. Only verified information can be claimed to be true. I wager most newssources wouldn't verify shit they run anymore than most consumers of said news sources would actually VERIFY the news sources reports.

Prime example. Remember Die Hard 4? Remember the scene where everyone watches the bad guys take out the capitol? (or was it the white house?) Remember how the people near there go outside and see it is okay and still standing? What about all the other poor bastards who have no way of verifying or cannot be bothered or have had their government run communications get taken out? (Hence why i recommend everyone have a CB radio or ham rig in their home, even without repeaters, the chain effect works enough to cover a whole region of concerned individuals.)

Verification, personal inquiry are both important factors of stories, and journalists have discovered that yellow journalism works. Why report a "claim" as a "claim"? Because it keeps the libel cases away from your door.

You are 100% correct. I worked for a newspaper once and my editor would constantly hammer into us that we had to "quote, quote, quote!" If somebody said something, we were to write it as "somebody said something".

Anything not attributed as a quote is viewed as fact in the news, so quoting is of utmost importance when reporting anything that has not been proven to have occurred; if not for accuracy's sake, at least for liability protection. People will sue, and win, over the smallest details that were reported as fact when they were not verified as such.

As a side point, any journalist who uses an online post as a source without further research is nothing short of a shoddy reporter.

When I worked as a reporter, people tried to use "off the record" like a magic phrase to redact my writing. All. The. Time.

I had a police officer tell me something like, "Yes, the state has been very helpful with this program. Off the record, they haven't done a dang thing." Of course I didn't quote either of his duplicitous remarks. I'm not going to help him lie.

When is it off the record? When we both agree ahead of time. When will we agree to that

That reminds me of how Fox News is constantly discussing crazy online rumors as if they were credible facts.

'Reports say that Obama has a taste for kittens! What a devastating blow to his campaign! Surely he will lose ground in the animal rights voting bloc. We'll cover this next on our 3 hour special "Barack-uriosity Killed the Cat."'

Hannity comes in: "So is the cat out of the bag on the Obama campaign? MySpace reports....." and so on and so forth

Reports say that Obama has a taste for kittens! What a devastating blow to his campaign! Surely he will lose ground in the animal rights voting bloc. We'll cover this next on our 3 hour special "Barack-uriosity Killed the Cat."

Yes, but what if an Editor has a really good story about a "party gone wild" which he knows will sell lots of papers but then at the last minute discovers his sources are false. Do you really expect him to cause his newspaper to loose sales?

Remember his duty is to the newspaper company's shareholders after all, not the customers.

Day 2: "Mother claims daughter told an 'embellished' story about the party"

There you go. A story and a retraction. Both of which are perfectly legal and true. The mother can sue all she wants, but what she should be doing is stringing up her daughter by her pinky toe. Instead, we end up with...

Sadly for the plaintiff the account came from a member of the family in a published journal (her daughter's website). How many times have there been stories of say Slashdot which were questionable. Then the comments started to fly.

Still it all boils down to the daughter's web posting. It's close enough a legitimate source for a judge to toss it. If a journalist made it up out of whole clothe that's one thing this is from a direct source.

Sadly for the plaintiff the account came from a member of the family in a published journal (her daughter's website).

Not quite so simple. First the daughter is only 16. Second I don't know how this particular site works, but it may be only accessible to members. No matter how easy is is to join, that would be different from "publishing" to all and sundry. It's at least nominally a private communication.

Regardless of legality, it was a sleazy thing to do and I have no sympathy for the newspapers. They

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Tabloids occasionally print the truth. And they occasionally do fact checking... more than can be said for the "establishment" mouthpieces that are the newspapers and media "outlets" of today. All they reprint is the "government press release" because we know they never lie to anyone, right?

And they occasionally do fact checking... more than can be said for the "establishment" mouthpieces that are the newspapers and media "outlets" of today.

Do you find that when you say that face to face, people nod as if they agree with you, then their eyes sort of glaze over, then they start glancing at their watch and... umm, gotta go - dental appointment!

Do you find that when you say that face to face, people nod as if they agree with you, then their eyes sort of glaze over, then they start glancing at their watch and... umm, gotta go - dental appointment!

shit, that's the funniest thing i've read in days. I have a friend who whenever the davinci code is mentioned has to interject an earnest, "its totally all true!!!1!" The nod -> eyeglaze routine is pretty well established now. Some people are just so stupid that they cannot tell the difference between critical evaluation of information and counter-establishment = true.

Once it gets to ad hominems (as it just did) I'm thinking mayhap this subject is not worth discussing. As for the newspapers around here, you can tell their slant on a story, and if you ask questions of the individuals involved and find out ten times more than what was quoted in the paper. (As I live in a small town at the moment, I can actually verify this very easily when it is mentioned in the papers).

I was born next door to your Russian friend. Hence why I can see it clearer. I got to see alot of that until the mighty "fall of the wall" and the so called "revolutions" over there. Ask your Russian friend if the same second tier Party people are now in charge in his homeland too. I'm curious. Where I lived, the same guys who ran Operations are now "Prime Minister". The guy who ran Propaganda (they called it Education like they do in the West) now runs the military... etc. The guys coming up for 'el

The fact that newspapers published the account is not "news for nerds." The story is just background for what actually is important news - namely that there could be precedent in the UK for holding news organizations accountable for publishing second hand information without fact checking.

I wonder if the "compromise" will be that from now on newspapers will add "as reported on [insert blog name here]" on every such story meaning that they would pass responsibility for accuracy to the original source.

Papers have been doing this sort of thing for years, often passing stuff off as their own stories or original comment. They might be able to protect themselves by attributing the tale but I think that there must be a limit to that. If a politician puts some wacky stuff in their blog it might be news, but if my young nephew does the same thing it certainly isn't.

But also, if you suddenly discover that half the stories in your local paper have just been pulled off the Internet, might you not think that you'

To only Amanda Hudson [imdb.com] I can find is a camera operator. She's done some pretty big movies, but I don't see why anything in her life would be in the news. Maybe she's related to Kate Hudson. Anyway, I find the amount of attention rich people get in the news to be way over the top.

What's even more sad is there is (was?) a US TV show along the same lines. "My Sweet 16" or something. I haven't watched TV in years, so I don't know the specifics. However, I've heard word of the show online. Youth, beauty, and wealth -- the pillars of the entertainment industry.

"The party was held at the family's Â£4m villa in Spain, and the daughter's account claimed that jewelery had been stolen and furniture and a television set thrown into the swimming pool; in addition there were claims of sex and drug use. The mother says that this was all falsehood and exaggeration"
Yeah. The villa is only worth Â£3.5m. And it was actually a DVD player that was thrown into the swimming pool. Oh and there was no drug use, only sex.

It seems to me that you couldnt possibly get in trouble for saying "According to her blog on myspace.com little suzy rich girls party got out of hand and someone threw a TV out the window"

I mean, thats certainly a true statement. If that would be acceptable to print without verifying the truth of the actual event then this isnt going to have much of an impact one way or another.

Personally I dont like the idea of a news paper regurgitating a blog as truth. Its one thing to refer to the blog, they way you might refer to another publication (ie "ABC news called florida for bush at 10:30").

A newspaper or TV station should ALWAYS identify it's source. This attitude that seeing it online is somehow equivalent to being an eyewitness is silly and dangerous. I hope they lose this stupid case just so we can get some journalistic integrity back for when it matters.

So the front page of every newspaper next week should be: "Two headed alien michael jackson baby!"...... according to an eye witness who posted on his blog, Michael Jackson gave birth to a 2 headed alien child. Pictures were also on the blog, and blogger insists they aren't photoshopped too!!...

It may be the truth that some blogger posted this, but that hardly makes it 'news' or makes the story satisfy any sort of journalistic integrity.

No, not every paper, but there certainly are papers like that. If the New York times started reporting on Michael Jacksons 2 headed alien child I suspect their readership would fall and they would end up in supermarket checkout isles.

I'm not saying that's the best thing but I'm not sure that those "aliens ate my baby" rags are destroying the media.

Don't people regularly do that now though? Its a daily occurrence in sports reporting where "An official close to the club" reports that somebody is going to be traded to another team. It also seems to happen fairly regularly in financial and political reporting.

Ill give you that. I dont really see where this case has a lot of merit, but I guess it depends on how they reported their source.

Obviously this topic is pretty brain dead but if a paper reported stuff in blogs as truth in other areas, without verification or identification of the source, that could be a problem. What if next time the paper runs a story based on a 9/11 conspiracy blog.

The only relevant fact that newspapers needed to check was that it was actually the 15-year old daughter that put it up for the world to see. Other than that, as the legal guardian, if the mother didn't want her daughter to post this information, she should have been a better parent.

There might actually be a case others have against the mother for defamation of character, since she is responsible for the actions of her daughter, and her daughter might have defamed them.

I wish parents would stop blaming other people for their own failings. Until their children come off age, what the kids do and what happens to the kids is the parents' sole responsibility.

If I publish libel, and you republish MY libel without ensuring its veracity, then you are ALSO liable for libel. Liability does not solely rest with the very first publisher. Each and every copy of defamatory material put into the public causes additional damage.

When you publish something that might tend to damage someones reputation you have an obligation to ensure what you are saying is TRUE and that you are not acting out of malice. No one forced the newspapers to republish a story they didn't even in

If I publish libel, and you republish MY libel without ensuring its veracity, then you are ALSO liable for libel.

That's true provided I have reason to doubt the information. If I can reasonably assume that the information is true, I'm not libeling you. And if you report the information yourself, I'm not libeling you if I repeat it. So, if you yourself say that you hold orgies at your home, it's not libel if I report that, even if it's not true.

And, what, pray tell does "come of age" mean, exactly? 18? Bulls*it. A 15-year old teenager knows exactly what he or she is doing when they post the crap that that woman's daughter posted.

Additionally, even if she was an excellent parent, her daughter could have easily posted that at a friend's house, at school or from her cell phone. You can be a good parent, but you can't monitor your kids 24/7.

The daughter should be held responsible in this case. "Kids" need to learn to take responsibility for their

Are you saying every lie on the internet can be reprinted by "authoritative" resources like print newspapers without them being held accountable?

This is defined by libel laws. First, saying that you put something on your blog isn't libel because it's a fact. Second, even if the newspaper reports negative information you yourself put on your blog about your family as fact, it's not libel because they can reasonably assume that you are either telling the truth or don't mind.

Because the person who published and the person complaining are the same person?

The person who *originally* published is the daughter of the person complaining.

The people who *currently* are publishing, that is, the tabloids, are being sued (rightfully, in my mind) for essentially spreading unsubstantiated rumor.

Look at it this way: If you're a reporter, and you tell your editor that "I've heard from a friend of a friend that this Hudson kid had a crazy party, can I do a story on it?" he'd say no. How should this be any different?

This includes geek bloggers, soccer moms and professional reporters. You post something with the impression that it is true and don't verify...then you should be help accountable. For example. A post recently posted ON slashdot that the RIAA MADE dell remove stereo output from some of its computers. Now it seems that it may not be so true, or again that is the rumor. If it is in fact found out to be of "no merit" that blogger/slashdot post SHOULD be found responsible for losses against dell & the riaa if they were able to make a case for that. Something to think about, just because you can doesn't mean you aren't responsible.

I can't say I have sympathy with any of the parties in this case. If I was the judge, ruling on this libel case I'd want to award damages AGAINST both sides.

For the lady and her daughter - abject stupidity. Once you put something on the internet, it's there for life - if you don't realise this, you are not qualified to use the internet. Just as if yo don't realise cars can kill, if improperly driven, you have no business being behind the wheel.

For the newspapers - whatever happened to validating your sources? Is this something that only happens in the movies, or has the average rag descended to the point where all it does is reprint salacious and unverified fiction from all and any sources. They really do deserve to be sued out of existence in that case.

"The case is expected to have far-reaching consequences for third parties who use or publish information from social networking sites. Lawyers say it could place a duty on all second-hand users to establish the truth of everything they want to republish from such sites."

She did not consent to the publication in the media of any photograph of her or her party, or of any material that she wrote on her Bebo site

Too bad. When you publish stuff on the internet for all of the world to see it really undermines your privacy claims. Now, if this girl only allowed her stories to be seen by those she had designated as friends, then she might have a leg to stand on with respect to privacy.

Also, the defamation claim is curious. I haven't ever seen a case where the the originator of the false statements is the same person suing the newspapers for making false statements.

If I post a picture on the internet, sure anyone can see it, but I still retain right of publication (or the perhaps the site that it is posted on depending on the legal mumbo jumbo).

If I put up a poster on a University Bulletin Board with a picture of my house saying big party, that does not give you the right to scan it in and use the picture in a news story about about the big party. You can take your own, but that is still my picture.

I found it odd that he attacked this statement, where in fact, this is their greatest legal leg to stand on.

I took that as you did, but then applied context. You can't be sued for defamation and violations of privacy if you find someone's photo on a kiosk in the middle of town that you know for a fact that person put there themselves if you were to copy it and send it to people. You aren't defaming them for spreading facts they already distributed. You aren't violating their privacy if they published i

You mean when I read that QT_pie3478 posted that "my partiez wuz schweet y'allzzz!!!1" that in fact, her partiez may not have been schweet after all? And that in fact, that source might not be reliable? The horror! If only there were some way to tell that the source might not be reliable...

Stay with me here:
1) Throw lavish party and get shocked by bill.
2) Post story exaggerating the facts.
3) Hope newspapers to pick up the story and run with it. (Sweet they did!)
$) Sue! Its not a real story!
5) Profit!!!!!

Call me crazy but this is really sad. I hope they dont get away with it. Whichever side is wrong.

I'm so mixed on this. I think that the papers/media were wrong to invade this individual's privacy over nothing other than rumor/fantasy. So what if the girl put it up on her social networking site? She could also put up how she is dating an alien from a UFO and has been given replicator tech and used it to build her own vacation home. Would you believe it without basic fact checking?

If my kids draw fantasy crap that they want for their next birthday and post it to myspace would the media instantly believe

I think reliability of information posted by a teenage girl on Bebo ranks up there with BBC World News. How else would they fill ten minutes of their daily morning broadcast with news from Zimbabwe, while their nearest reporter is sitting in Johannesburg some 1200 miles away?

before people learn not to post stories that they don't want the whole world reading? I hear stories like this time after time, and its always, "They should respect my privacy." Well, guess what... if you post information publicly over a global connection that EVERYONE has access to, then you have no privacy.
That said, I do think the media are idiots for taking "credible" information from the social networking page of a 15 year old girl. I think that they should absolutely be held responsible, especially for a story that is so damaging to a person's character. There's a reporter somewhere that should be fired for this.

Mrs Hudson said her daughter has also suffered greatly because of the breach of her privacy. "Jodie is 15 years old," she said. "She did not consent to the publication in the media of any photograph of her or her party, or of any material that she wrote on her Bebo site."

Looks like she learned about it the hard way. What you post on-line is public info.

Journalism's origins stem from the reporting of shiploads of trade goods and their arrival in port - particularly Venice and London. Advance knowledge of a ship and it's contents allowed the original speculators the opportunity to make a healthy profit. These sheets were circulated, certainly around London and Venice and it wasn't long before people used them to advertise.

Friends of the printers (to cut a long story short) often sent lengthy letters to each other, reporting on topical events (it was before the internet) especially wars. These letters were often printed verbatim hence the origin of the word 'correspondent'. These reports were incredibly popular and garnered readership. Edward Mallet took the highly original step of editing them to fit the space between the ads, and the Daily Courant was born in the 1700's. Often these letters were reports of reports of reports - a bit like the internet!

Gradually this developed into an art form and it wasn't long before reporters were despatched to write the letters themselves. War, conflict, crime and punishment and scandal soon became the daily diet of millions of readers. Then Hollywood was invented and so was the world of entertainment. Gradually readers started to prefer entertainment to 'news' - and who wouldn't? I present exhibit one 'The Sun' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun/ [wikipedia.org] , which holds the world record for the highest readership of a single edition in the English language. This is closely followed by that masterpiece of twee entertainment published by DC Thomson 'The Sunday.Post' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Post/ [wikipedia.org] including the immortal humour of 'Oor Wullie' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oor_Wullie/ [wikipedia.org] Oor_Wullie and 'The Broons' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Broons/ [wikipedia.org]

So it shouldn't really surprise anyone that people like to be entertained and since the entertainment industry is the economic dynamo of the developed nations, we shouldn't really be surprised by the sudden revelation that newspapers are in the 'infotainment' business.

None of this is at all new, Evelyn Waugh, in 1938, lampooned the whole industry to hilarious effect in 'Scoop' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoop_(novel)/ [wikipedia.org]. The simple tests for 'news' is; "What is the origin of this report?" and: "Who benefits from it?" and the three eternal questions any journalist would ask any famous figure if they caught them in the elevator are: "How bad is it? Will it get any worse? And what are you going to do about". A healthy attitude of scepticism is an essential attri..

We interrupt this broadcast to bring you ** breaking news** direct from Lynwood, California where Paris Hilton has just been released from prison having served four days of a 40 day sentence...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Hilton/ [wikipedia.org]

Bias Disclaimer: I used to be a member of the NUJ and I used to teach this subject.

This is what you get when you have multiple 24-hour news channels and lots of news web sites itching to have something new. There's only so much real news, and not enough of it to even fill one TV channel with content. So they have to dig for crap. This is what you get.

Although it's true the papers should have fact-checked... isn't the daughter ultimately the one responsible for the false information? I guess suing one's own, minor, daughter probably doesn't make the same ch-ching sound.

If you publish the fact that it was published, then you are publishing facts. For example, if you say "George Bush is the anti-Christ" you are not publishing a fact, but if you say "Uncyclopedia says that George Bush is the anti-Christ" you are indeed publishing facts.

If your mainstream media newspaper quotes some kid's blog with attribution, then it is indeed publishing facts.

It's the newspapers fault for printing untrue and damaging stories. The defence: "but that's what they told me" is what you'd expect from a 6 year-old, grassing up a friend who did something bad. The publishers have a duty of care to verify the information they print, and must accept the consequences for being wrong. However, that does not mean the originator of the story is completely blameless - but they're not professional (I use that term in the loosest possible way) journalists.

The paper has a duty to check facts that it publishes. How do they know that the 'daughter' publishing this information is really this woman's daughter at all, and not a jealous friend who wasn't invited?

Journalism has undergone a frightening shift in the last thirty years. Don't get me wrong: it has always been about selling eyes to the advertisers. But there used to be professional standards. People could take pride in saying they were a journalist. Journalists like Woodward and Bernstein were heroes protecting the public interest.

Now journalism is just another branch of the entertainment industry. Any sense of professional pride seems to be gone. Truth and accuracy don't matter.

It's not just stories like this, either. Journalists routinely slap their names on unedited press releases and call them stories without fact checking a damn thing. Politicians and businesses know that journalists are too lazy to do their jobs.

NOW you tell us! Where were you before the Iraq war? Gees, to think that the media shouldn't just publish corporate and government press releases before seeing if they had a shred of truth - what a concept! This will revolutionize news reporting!

I'm not going to get all "PC" on you, I'm actually going to bust out some child psychology.

In research on parenting behavior, methods of control have commonly been divided into three categories. The first type of control is the use of power by parents. Such techniques, in which parents attempt to force or pressure their children to behave in certain ways, are associated with children who are less socially competent. When parents use power to control their children, the children are likely to see their choices as governed by external forces. They do as they are told but only as long as there is a power to make them. They may become passive or rebellious.

A second type of control is love withdrawal, in which parents show disapproval for behavior that displeases them. It may include ignoring, shaming, or isolating the child. The use of love withdrawal shows mixed results in its effects on children; some studies have found it to be acceptable, whereas other studies have found it resulted in dependent or depressed children. New research on parents' use of psychological control may have identified what parts of love withdrawal are especially toxic. When parents use guilt or manipulation to control their children, the result is anxiety and depression for children. In contrast, when parents use reasonable monitoring and negotiated control of behavior, children are less likely to get in trouble.

The third type of control is induction. Induction includes reasoning with children and helping them understand the effects of their behavior on others. For example, a parent might say, "When you yell at your sister, she feels very afraid and sad. She feels that you don't like her." Induction is the type of control that is most likely to result in socially competent children.

There are also clear benefits for a child's moral development when a parent uses induction because induction teaches children to think about the effect of their behavior on others. Induction both activates and cultivates the child's own logic and compassion. Children raised with induction are more likely to have internalized standards for behavior, better developed moral sensitivities, and less vulnerability to external influence.

http://family.jrank.org/pages/1244/Parenting-Education-Content-Parenting-Education.html -- this isn't exactly a primary source but it rehashes things I learned in a "Human Development" class; I just don't feel like getting super academic on you and researching/citing the primary sources. If you really care about your children enough to give them the best childhood possible, you'll do that on your own anyway -- of course, maybe you won't, after all, you said it yourself, "I just don't care." Great attitude!

You don't know of a better way to parent a child because you were never shown how, but please, for the sake of your children, research parenting methods before having any. Don't do it the way your Father did just because that's all you know -- it is well known that power assertion is one of the least effective means for instilling intrinsic motivation into a child. What you want is for the child to internalize the reasons for their behavior, so that when they move out at 18 years old they continue to truly believe in and follow the lessons you taught them, instead of just throwing them to the wind 'cause they are out from under the harsh glare of mean ol' Dad.